- How narrowly is the research problem defined? In your opinion, is it too narrow or too broad? Explain.
- Does the researcher describe related theories?
- Was the research setting artificial (e.g., a laboratory setting)? If yes, do you think that the gain in the control of extraneous variables offset the potential loss of information that would be obtained in a study in a more real-life setting? Explain.
- Are there any obvious flaws or weaknesses in the researcher’s methods or measurement or observation? Explain.
- Was the analysis statistical or non-statistical? Was the description of the results easy to understand? What type of study was can it be classified as?
- Are definition of the key terms provided? Was the description of the results easy to understand? Explain.
- Were the descriptions of procedures and methods sufficiently detailed? Were any important details missing? Explain.
- Does the report lack information on matters that are potentially important for evaluating it?
- Do the researchers include a discussion of the limitations of their study?
- Does the researcher imply that his or her research proves something? Do you believe that it proves something? Explain.
Sample Solution
